Jimquisition: Dumbing Down for the Filthy Casuals

[DayDark]

lol Thank you for following me this far. Believe it or not, most people refuse to. Now see, normally I would say the advantage of opening up the game to more players by adding optional difficulty is worth the loss of some excitement for some players. We all would say that. NORMALLY. But, let's say we just had one game that didn't do that. Wouldn't ONE be alright? And in the case of that ONE game, the developer would be free to supercharge that unique experience. So let's just have ONE game, and do everything in it that we can only do when there is NO adjustable difficulty.

Is that so bad? I mean really, in this market? There aren't many deep or hard AAA games. Is it so bad to have one game that doesn't have an easy mode, especially considering we kind of have something particular in mind? Not all games should be like this, of course. But what about one. Just one game. JUST ONE. One game. ONE.

Is that a crime?

No, no crime done. I'm actually fine with Dark Souls not having easy difficulty, and having played some demon souls, I understand that there probably is a way to defeat every opponent using a wooden stick. My main concern would be if, in general, games should not have easy modes. There are frighteningly many people who believe you can measure peoples intelligence by the games they play and what mode they play them on. Hence "dumped down --> for the casuals". Of course with your particular issue, this seems not to be the case.

Actually that's a fantastic question lol. The gameplay of Dark Souls is designed to facilitate learning. The pattern is, you reach a seemingly impassable obstacle, and then you LEARN how to make it easy for yourself. You learn about the enemy, learn about your character, learn about the mechanics, learn about the world and the environment, and learn about the options available to you. You have to LEARN to proceed. But it is also designed with innovative community features. I can see how other people died and learn from their mistakes. They leave messages to warn me of danger. I can summon them into my world to teach me how to succeed. Guides and forums are a part of this community the designers have intentionally cultivated. We all work together and help each other. That's part of the fun!

If you think Dark Souls is nothing but a game that happens to be hard, then there is absolutely no reason not to put easy mode in it. When you understand WHY it is hard, you begin to understand why this matters.

I see. Difficulty is what the game is about, like the game I Wanna Be That Guy. I have no problem with this. Let's just not judge people by it, as a measure of their worth as human beings

Thanks for being a good sport, with no rage.

 

[lord.jeff]

This is why we can't have nice things, an optional feature gets added to the game and shit hits the fan, can't we trust the developer here at least until we play the actual game.

 

[Nazulu]

Nice baseless assumption Jim. Would it surprise you that the reason fans don't want an easy mode isn't because it can be enjoyed by more people? I sometimes wonder if I should watch certain vids of yours since I know you are already going to parrot a popular argument that's already been floating around the internet for awhile.

It's too bad so many people don't understand that not every game 'should' have to have an easy mode, and that maybe the rewards are the struggles to move forward.

Also, when you get really vague info on how a game is going to be made 'easier', it's good to question how they're going to do it.

Of course, if this is what the developer really wants, then so be it.

Edit: Also, you are a moron if you buy a game randomly and expect it to be catered to you. Do your fucking research.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

No, no crime done. I'm actually fine with Dark Souls not having easy difficulty, and having played some demon souls, I understand that there probably is a way to defeat every opponent using a wooden stick. My main concern would be if, in general, games should not have easy modes. There are frighteningly many people who believe you can measure peoples intelligence by the games they play and what mode they play them on. Hence "dumped down --> for the casuals". Of course with your particular issue, this seems not to be the case.

'''

I see. Difficulty is what the game is about, like the game I Wanna Be That Guy. I have no problem with this. Let's just not judge people by it, as a measure of their worth as human beings

Thanks for being a good sport, with no rage.

I had no idea it felt this good to not be called an elitist ass-hat. Now I'm worried I'll be struck by lightning or attacked by a shark lol.

Emotions run high on this topic on both sides. Many people, myself included, have felt the very real sting of elitism and exclusion during our gaming careers. Mr. Sterling has pounced on the opportunity to exploit that emotional response and unleash it in the form of prejudice against the Dark Souls community. And as for us? Well, we react like a child when you take their toys away lol. I mean, FPS fans don't have to constantly fight for their right to exist. It's quite a burden, and when I look around at all the hate, and at the industry as a whole, it sometimes feels hopeless.

I don't think players who enjoy easy games are going to run out of content in the near future hehe. The Souls games and some earlier FROM offerings (which I have not played) are in part a reaction to the direction the industry has taken of making easier games for wider audiences. I don't care what other people do or what they play. I just know what I like and I don't think anyone in the modern game industry should have to compromise on the experience they are looking for. There are enough games that we can all have the one that is just right for us.

You're on the right track with I Wanna Be The Guy, but I would argue that I Wanna Be The Guy is to Dark Souls as Charlie Chaplin is to Citizen Kane lol.

 

[viranimus]

No.... just No.

Jim you are so incorrect in this one.

The analogy of a book exploding or video pausing does not fit this. This is more like being an 10 year old kid in a video rental store. You have a WIDE array of things to choose from. The clerk is most likely a stoner and doesnt really care what you rent. Physically the "age appropriate" titles are at easy visual access, but the more Risque R rated affairs are naturally much higher and harder to reach. While you may be 10 years old... and mentally capable of comprehending most of the content in a film like "Ted" It does not mean you are going to "get" everything going on in say... "Clerks". Thing is however, the souls games arent akin to Rated R affairs. They are more like XXX. They are not designed for that audience. They are not intended for that audience. They are not meant to appeal to that audience.

And quite honestly... There is another reason why this is just beyond wrong. Because the Souls games... Present something that the industry as a whole is practically devoid of now. It is in essence the "Look, see here, It still CAN be done" to this generation spoon fed on the creamy puree'd goop that has been the industry for more than the last decade. Yes the souls franchise has served a specific niche. One that had already had to suffer the indignity of being ignored for so long. To take what was in essence the ONLY thing of its kind and want to water it down... No, it simply cannot be justified. Sure, if there were dozens of DS clones to choose from, By all means, expand the base. But when it was like an act of congress pulling Gods teeth for a title such as this not only to see the light of day but actually generate a sequel that DIDNT pander there is no justification that can be made for essentially gutting the franchise and defeating its purpose. Because really... without the difficulty... all you really have is an odd mixture of Fable + Dead Space + Japanese horror tropes.

The players have every right to be upset over this. It is bad enough what the industry has done already. To many players it is like being "raised" on 100 proof whiskey... and then expected to make due with watered down wine coolers. And to take the difficulty and throw it out the window to appeal to a larger audience? Yes it absolutely DOES diminish the enjoyment of the game. Being able to complete a souls game is like a badge of honor. It is supposed to be something not every gamer is capable of doing. By gutting the content you effectively destroy that sense of accomplishment gained from completing it.

I do sincerely get what you are trying to drive at, and for the most part you would be right. But as it relates to Souls and your reasoning for justifying effectively destroying the only thing that makes the game unique or even worth playing, is so very very VERY wrong.

How about a compromise... Give old school hard core gamers more options and wide variety in that level of brütal challenge or even harder... then we can consider giving souls an "easy mode"

 

[Auron]

As long as there's the option of not being hand-held it's all fine stop complaining. Many people complained about casual features on Hitman absolution but the hardest difficulty is harder than the older games, that was completely overlooked by everyone who complained however. It's the same with a Dark Soul's easy mode, don't see the point as long as it's just another option. Now making core mechanics "more accessible" is generally sucky. Reminds me of how Dawn of War 2 was initially meant to be a casual 3v3 game, that was not cool, didn't appeal to the broader audience Johnny Ehbert(this guy should retire from gaming.) wanted to grab and it ended up being halfassedly mended into a 1v1 game through various expansions and patches.

 

[Busard]

-snippety snip-

So apparently I'm "lowest common denominator"?.

Well aren't you a shining gem of sheer wisdom and brilliance...

Yep. When I'm faced with people who don't have the interest of the game at heart, or the interest of the core community, or creative license surrounding a game, but just because something to fit what's most common in every other games out there just because "It should be like this to fit my needs", that's lowest common denominator for me. The fact you are getting so angry about this is a nice compensation for me though.

And yeah, parroted links, although strange, nobody seems to watch them or listen to them so hey, i'll keep repeating since that's the only thing that might work.

On a less aggressive note: Easy mode is not something as easy as just "cutting the hp/damange in half" in Dark Souls. There's the online/pvp aspect, the actual feel of challenge and fear of what's coming around are inherent parts of what constitutes this game and it's pacing.

Dark Souls is important for it's community BECAUSE it is not guaranteed that you will finish the game in the first place, at least not easily and not at your first try. It's a game that demands to be more involved and not just sitting there waiting to be spoonfed. That's why people like it, and that's why it is NICHE. Again, it is not supposed to be enjoyed by everyone, as it was made that way. And there are already ways to cheapen the game anyway (play offline, use some early op weapons like the drake sword...)

I'm all for better explanations of the lore a bit though as it can be shady as best, or some mechanics like the humanity system, but that's about it when it comes to DS. I'd rather have the devs focusing on making the game actual true to it's core and it's niche, to what made it succesful in the first place, instead of pulling a Team Ninja and make the game appeal to a crowd that doesn't really give a shit in the first place

EDIT: I'm sorry for the insulting tone as I have nothing personal. I'm mostly fighting an idea here. Also, like said above, is it a crime to just have that ONE game that a niche can enjoy as it is without being tampered with because a bigger crowd decides it should be the case ?

 

[Orkimond]

The issue is never that games have easy modes, it's that games have hard modes. When a game is balanced for the lower or lowest difficulties then gamers truly do suffer. There have been seriously great games rendered simply good (Mass Effect 2 and Skyrim) good games rendered dull (Splinter Cell 2+, Assassins Creed) or multiplayer games rendered a joke (LoL).
Games should be balanced for the game modes that exist. If you want your game to have higher difficulties, make sure the scaling keeps the game fun (Mass Effect 2). RPGs should have harder or easier areas with better or worse rewards (Skyrim). And when you design a game to be casual and specifically state and reiterate this is your aim during a beta, at least don't pretend you didn't after the fact (LoL).

 

[OldNewNewOld]

-snip-

Neat meaningful dialogue. The stat changes seems relatively simple, as you've pointed out. But how will they deal with other game mechanics like curse from seethe the scaleless? If you don't know (can't remember if you have played the game or not, sorry) one of the biggest dangers fighting this boss isn't that he does high damage, it's that he'll build your curse status meter until you are insta-killed by it. Once you've been killed by curse, when you come back your health is reduced by half until you remove the curse. Or the challenge of fighting multiple enemies and being stun locked or knocked of a ledge. I'm sure there are other examples, but wouldn't From Software have to change certain boss and game mechanics as well as change stats for an easier mode? I don't think the stat changing solution is as easy as it originally seems.

I assume that all resistances can also be edited with a few numbers. Increase the curse resistances of every armor.

Also, you seem to assume that "Easy mode" should remove all the challenges and insta-kills. I don't see a problem with Seethe the Scaleless or with fighting multiple enemies. As long as enemies are weaker, deal less damage and have less health, people will learn. The majority of people that want an Easy mode isn't because they don't want any challenge. It's because the normal challenge is too much for them. Poison in Blighttown, curses, traps... all of them are dangerous things, but they can be avoided easily. Even the worst player would realize that standing in the swamp in Blighttown will poison you. Everyone will know that falling of a ledge will kill you if the fall is long.
However, not matter how much you know that the Capra Demon will kill you 2 hits, if you're not skilled enough, you won't be able to avoid it.

Also, "dumbing down" happens when the normal mode is actually easy and then they make a "hard mode". That way the core game is balanced around unskilled people and even the hard mode is easy and/or bad because it's just number changes.
However, if you do it the other way around, if you make a game hard on normal and after that add an easy mode, number changes are OK, because it's the core game made a bit easier. Sure, it would be nice to have different AI's for different difficulty levels, but that's not needed if you go from hard to easy.

Again, I don't think everything needs to change. Traps and co aren't the main danger in DS. It's the enemies. Enemies require skill to be beaten, traps require just a bit of thinking. Nerf the things that require skill so that they require less, let the rest be the same.

 

[Shadow-Phoenix]

EDIT: I'm sorry for the insulting tone as I have nothing personal. I'm mostly fighting an idea here. Also, like said above, is it a crime to just have that ONE game that a niche can enjoy as it is without being tampered with because a bigger crowd decides it should be the case ?

No insult taken chap I've had lack of sleep for 24 hrs due to christmas shopping and dealing with relatives I'm not all to fond of visiting this time of year so I've now gotten back from a few hours sleep and feel somewhat refreshed with a clear mind to realise I was getting pretty much worked up over trivial matters.

Now that I've gotten the swears out of my system I was wanting to point out that while the game is it's own niche it would at least be somewhat handy if they perfected ways of getting new players into the game without being crushed and put off the experience because I and quite a few friends (the type of games they play differ to mine at times) love playing games as a pastime and while we do love a good challenge we don't exactly feel exhilarated from getting thrashed around and dying plenty of times because even when we finally accomplish the challenge we tend to end up not feeling like it was really all that worthwhile and end up discussing what parts of the game (not saying it's specifically DS) challenges felt like a let down and others that were good.

Another example is my mother who adores Tetris and plays it at it's highest difficulty where as I can't play that mode to save my life yet she can't play any of today's modern games on virtually any setting (That's how far back in time she really is =P) and while I realise the mode she's playing is indeed hard for me but not her I'd still choose easy then move to normal and then to her level gradually getting better with each mode (I also did this with Skyim and a few other games to find it worked for me quite a few times).

In the end I'll probably still give the new DS a good old fashioned fisty cuffs go and see how it all ends and I might end up liking it a little more than the last one or I might end up putting it down for something like Aliens Colonial Marines.

I'd also like to say as a last note the thing that irks some people around here is people from the DS community calling others wrong/ignorant which does come off as highly insulting and I'd wish they would tone it down a bit and find other ways of explaining it in simpler terms so it doesn't end up as an insult.

I also apologize for my previous posts because of me getting worked up over silly things because in the end we're all gamers here and we should better ourselves and get along with one another.

 

[BioRex]

EDIT: I'm sorry for the insulting tone as I have nothing personal. I'm mostly fighting an idea here. Also, like said above, is it a crime to just have that ONE game that a niche can enjoy as it is without being tampered with because a bigger crowd decides it should be the case ?

No insult taken chap I've had lack of sleep for 24 hrs due to christmas shopping and dealing with relatives I'm not all to fond of visiting this time of year so I've now gotten back from a few hours sleep and feel somewhat refreshed with a clear mind to realise I was getting pretty much worked up over trivial matters.

Now that I've gotten the swears out of my system I was wanting to point out that while the game is it's own niche it would at least be somewhat handy if they perfected ways of getting new players into the game without being crushed and put off the experience because I and quite a few friends (the type of games they play differ to mine at times) love playing games as a pastime and while we do love a good challenge we don't exactly feel exhilarated from getting thrashed around and dying plenty of times because even when we finally accomplish the challenge we tend to end up not feeling like it was really all that worthwhile and end up discussing what parts of the game (not saying it's specifically DS) challenges felt like a let down and others that were good.

Another example is my mother who adores Tetris and plays it at it's highest difficulty where as I can't play that mode to save my life yet she can't play any of today's modern games on virtually any setting (That's how far back in time she really is =P) and while I realise the mode she's playing is indeed hard for me but not her I'd still choose easy then move to normal and then to her level gradually getting better with each mode (I also did this with Skyim and a few other games to find it worked for me quite a few times).

In the end I'll probably still give the new DS a good old fashioned fisty cuffs go and see how it all ends and I might end up liking it a little more than the last one or I might end up putting it down for something like Aliens Colonial Marines.

I'd also like to say as a last note the thing that irks some people around here is people from the DS community calling others wrong/ignorant which does come off as highly insulting and I'd wish they would tone it down a bit and find other ways of explaining it in simpler terms so it doesn't end up as an insult.

I also apologize for my previous posts because of me getting worked up over silly things because in the end we're all gamers here and we should better ourselves and get along with one another.

Well being tired would be a bother, I have finals so my mind has been pulled both ways so I get what you are talking about. Also you mother sounds cool lol.
I wouldn't worry too much on some members of the community being a bit too blunt, the thing is they are kinda paranoid since hard games are almost a dying breed. Too often are games that used to hard turned into rubbish or frankly die off. Oh megaman you poor poor guy, how we miss thee.

 

[GrimHeaper]

Then don't use words wrongly.

Yep here we are everything is still pretty fucked. You are trying to justify difficulty with the story and tone.
Most people just don't care about those things.
Are you telling me DS3 will be sunshine and rainbows? No something will happen in 2 that screws everything again so the game will still be "hard".

You should get a job in jumping over points. You would be really good at it.

What happens afterwards or before has no bearing on the current story. It's a self-contained story that in a time of dark, even the smallest light can grow strong.

Also considering Dark Souls II has been highly hinted to be a prequel or a sequel but taking place in a far off land. It has no bearing either way to Dark Souls story.

The same way harry potter is a self contained story.
Let me guess The hobbit has no bearing at all on The Lord of the Ring's books either right?
It would help if you actually made a point instead of trite reasons.

 

[Peithelo]

Anyone, and I say this without qualification or reserve, ANYONE who is anti-Easy-Mode, suffers from a profound and frightening lack of empathy. "No one made it easier for ME!" Dude, that's EXACTLY why you make it easier for the kid coming after you. Raise a child (well) and you'll figure it out.

Games being a pastime has no bearing on this problem. I am of the opinion that the final word regarding any creative work almost always belongs to its creator. The creations can and should be critiqued by the those that have experience of them, but usually they have no right to demand a creation to be altered or designed from the very beginning to suit the tastes of as many people as possible. Doing so would only hinder creativity.

Should we then be sacrificing some creativity just so that the creations can be as easily accessible to as many people as possible? I don't think so, mostly because there are so many creative minds out there that it is unavoidable that you will find something suitable for you specifically. This should not come as a surprise to anyone but some creations have different prerequisites than others do. Just like it is inevitable that there are some things that you find suitable for you it is just as inevitable for there to be some things that are not suitable for you. Games are no exception to this.

Neither does this have anything to do with our ability to practise empathy. People who play games are not a uniform group of peers. The only thing that for a certainty connects these people is the fact that they play games. There is no single level of skill or a unified preference of style that could be followed when a game is being created. There are a myriad of people of varying levels of skill and as many individually differing preferences of taste.

Humans differ; deal with it.

Interesting that we would have the same premise but then arrive in two completely dirrerent conclusions. The very ways of approaching the challenge of dealing with it differ in a profound level. Your way of dealing with it is, I think, that you would like for these differences to be accounted and compensated for in everything anyone ever does. These differences undoubtedly should be taken into account in any of the social and societal circumstances that you have presented, but they should not be allowed to regulate the way our many forms of entertainment and art are created and consumed. Or impose any limitations to it.

The experience in Dark Souls almost hinges on the knowledge that you aren't certain to succeed in anything you do. There is the risk of utter failure! This is what gives the experience meaning and the idea the game is build around. Everyone should be aware that the challenges we face define us. When overcoming challenges we often become something more than we previously were. The reason we bother doing anything at all and putting energy into doing it is that there is a possibility of some form of reward afterwards. Be it an attempt to learn the calculus or to swim for the first time, we gain these and any other skills through challenge.

 

[Korten12]

Then don't use words wrongly.

Yep here we are everything is still pretty fucked. You are trying to justify difficulty with the story and tone.
Most people just don't care about those things.
Are you telling me DS3 will be sunshine and rainbows? No something will happen in 2 that screws everything again so the game will still be "hard".

You should get a job in jumping over points. You would be really good at it.

What happens afterwards or before has no bearing on the current story. It's a self-contained story that in a time of dark, even the smallest light can grow strong.

Also considering Dark Souls II has been highly hinted to be a prequel or a sequel but taking place in a far off land. It has no bearing either way to Dark Souls story.

The same way harry potter is a self contained story.
Let me guess The hobbit has no bearing at all on The Lord of the Ring's books either right?
It would help if you actually made a point instead of trite reasons.

Never mind I know your a troll now. You don't understand what I am talking about and bringing up random shit to make your point seem valid. Considering that Dark Souls world has been screwed up before the game begins and there was a large war before it. That can easily be used as the setting. Since once again in DS2 your an undead. Now just stop arguing as you make no points. Your examples make no sense in the context of this arguments. Different stories have different rules and how their stories are have no baring on this. Dark Souls is a universe not just one story. Just because they won't have the exact story doesn't mean it takes away from the tone the other games have set.

 

[longboardfan]

I don't have time for arguments this week, unfortunately, but let me just address some things briefly before flying off into the night. Once I've said this, I'm done on the topic for now, though I may need to do a new video after the holidays for those who spectacularly missed the point of the video:

The difference between an optional easy mode and the homogenization of videogames is as simple as the difference between Ninja Gaiden Black's "Ninja Dog" mode and Ninja Gaiden 3. One game had an optional extra mode for people who didn't want brutal challenge, and one tore the default experience apart.

Easy modes aren't a new concept, people. Capcom had some of the most hardcore action games around, and they actually offered you an easier mode if you had your ass kicked one too many times. Nobody complained about that. Nobody believes the core Devil May Cry 3 experience was ravaged by multiple difficulties. And frankly, it's pretty insulting to Dark Souls if you think ALL it has to offer the world is difficulty.

As for my attitude in this video ... uh ... welcome to the Jimquisition? Apparently it's okay for me to have this attitude when it's people you don't agree with -- not so now. Should I reshoot the video in a non-condescending "easy mode" format for you?

You'd better have a follow up vid, because you missed the point of your own topic. The point is, sir, that developers and publishers feel the need to dumb down and homogenize their product to appeal to as many people as possible and have done so for a long time now, only now we've gotten to the point where there really is only two genres: Indie and AAA. Indie is always a physics puzzle platformer or yet another rogue-like top down isometric smashmup. AAA is always some Gears of Modern Bio-Effect Dead Space 5 hallway cover shooter with a side order of quick time events, real time strategy, and super awesome optional mandatory multiplayer co-op! Wooo Testosterone Fueled RAAAAAGE. You know to appeal to a "wider audience."

The point is, sir, that its not that they would include an "easy mode" its the fact that they feel the need to add one to "appeal to a wider audience." If they want to go the Mass Effect 3 route and have a "story only mode," then go for it, but they are advertising this easy mode as a selling point to directly appeal to a wider audience.

Its this cancerous tumour idea that their product can't sell on its own merits without somehow finding a way to make as many people as possible interested in the product regardless of genre. "Oh, we added an easy mode, now lots of people will like us now! Right?" Yeah, no, doesn't work that way. Hey Jim, remember Brutal Legend? The game infamous for mis-marketing? Oh yeah, its an action RPG! No it wasn't, it was an RTS. Because they thought that not enough people would buy the game if they actually told people what the game was.

 

[Mortrialus]

if you don't like the game why do you want to play it?

If you don't like easy mode, why can't you ignore it?

If you were reading, you would have seen why I can't just ignore it here:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/6.395777-Jimquisition-Dumbing-Down-for-the-Filthy-Casuals?page=18#16100193

But an easy mode DOES affect players regardless of whether or not they use it. One of the reasons why Dark Souls is so successful, why it has such a devoted and dedicated following in the first game is because it's one of the few modern AAA games in which there exists the possibility for failure, that you might not be able to complete the game. This gives the game a huge sense of tension and dread which makes progressing through the game all the more satisfying. If you add an easy mode which is designed specifically to allow everyone to complete the game, even if I never use the feature it changes the game. All that tension and dread, it all vanishes. It's gone completely. There is always an easy way out if things get challenging. I am at that point guaranteed to beat the game.

You can say "It's optional", but it subtly affects my entire gaming experience even if I never use it.

I'm being respectful here. I've done nothing but respond to everyone calmly and without insult, but I'm getting pretty annoyed by all your content. You all are rehashing the same questions and when I address them, like how Dark Souls is not going to be easily converted to an easy mode, and despite my addressing your questions and arguments you ignore them and keep strawmanning people in this thread. It's getting old.

 

[jboking]

It really isn't about "no girls allowed" when I gush about how great Demon's/Dark Souls is. I truly want others to enjoy the punishment and the satisfaction like I did, and I also fully recognize that this punishment isn't for everyone. You don't need to be a "hardcore gamer" to enjoy Dark Souls, you just need to be open to learning and experimentation, something that most games DISCOURAGE more than anything, and something that the "casual" gamer dismisses as well.

Let me put it this way for you. I really like Devil May Cry 3. I can play it on Dante Must Die, where I'm forced to come up with the best methods of handling any boss and where experimenting/mastering all of the weapons is necessary. I loved playing as a Royal Guard where I had to perfectly time each of my opponents hits in order to block all damage they would deal. I also recognize that this is incredibly difficult, though rewarding (there is nothing quite like earning an SSS). I recognize not everyone can do what I do, and I recognize that that is why Devil May Cry 3 has a human(easy) mode. That human mode (which existed in the two games prior) did not harm my game. It did nothing to me or people that play like me. Devil May Cry 4 still came about and had modes that were just as difficult as what I had experienced in DMC3(well maybe not AS hard, but very close). All an easy mode did was allow those who weren't to good at the game to still get to experience the awesome(ly bad) story and characters. The community for my game grew because of it and I found more people to talk to about it. This is an empirical example of how an easy mode does not effect the hardcore gamer and how those that play on easy can still experience the awesomeness of the story and world (which is one of the better things about Dark Souls, IMO) and wont be discouraged from playing.

What I tend to see around this argument is people who tout that the game shouldn't have an easy mode because it would invite casuals and they want to keep their game hardcore. That may not be you, but that is the majority of people I see here.

I worry that if an easy mode is presented, many people won't ever get the same satisfaction I got, because they won't ever be forced to learn, never forced to experiment, never forced to learn the insides and outsides of the game before conquering it. The sole exception, that you've mentioned, is the gamer that would still be struggling in an easy mode, forced on the same path of learning/punishment that I was on except on an "easier" scale.

An easy mode is almost always the same game but on an 'easier' scale. That is why they call it an easy mode. If there was an easy mode in Dark Souls you wouldn't arrive in fucking Celestia and shit rainbows to attack enemies, it would be the same game but with nerfed enemies. I can guarantee that, and I'm not even making the game. If an easy mode being the same troubles you faced on normal, but slightly less difficult is grounds for you to withdraw your apprehension towards an easy mode, then it is time to withdraw.

 

[GrimHeaper]

Then don't use words wrongly.

Yep here we are everything is still pretty fucked. You are trying to justify difficulty with the story and tone.
Most people just don't care about those things.
Are you telling me DS3 will be sunshine and rainbows? No something will happen in 2 that screws everything again so the game will still be "hard".

You should get a job in jumping over points. You would be really good at it.

What happens afterwards or before has no bearing on the current story. It's a self-contained story that in a time of dark, even the smallest light can grow strong.

Also considering Dark Souls II has been highly hinted to be a prequel or a sequel but taking place in a far off land. It has no bearing either way to Dark Souls story.

The same way harry potter is a self contained story.
Let me guess The hobbit has no bearing at all on The Lord of the Ring's books either right?
It would help if you actually made a point instead of trite reasons.

Never mind I know your a troll now. You don't understand what I am talking about and bringing up random shit to make your point seem valid. Considering that Dark Souls world has been screwed up before the game begins and there was a large war before it. That can easily be used as the setting. Since once again in DS2 your an undead. Now just stop arguing as you make no points. Your examples make no sense in the context of this arguments. Different stories have different rules and how their stories are have no baring on this. Dark Souls is a universe not just one story. Just because they won't have the exact story doesn't mean it takes away from the tone the other games have set.

What's next you are going to tell me DMC 3 had no bearing from DMC1.
Let me guess it doesn't matter which mass effect is played it has no bearing on the story. What color of dark souls would you like Red, green, or blue?

Storys that are intertwined have the same rule they are connected just because an event happens on the other side of the world or a different time doesn't mean they aren't connected that's the talk of first world punks. I mean really just you don't care about something else because it happens further away or slightly before or after your time when you KNOW about it?
If you are saying that at all it means you don't give a damn about the story to begin with.

No, all stories follow the same rule barring those that are in alternate realities and even those follow the same rules for the most part eventually interlinking with the main itself. Earth-1 and earth-2 ring any bells?

 

[Korten12]

Then don't use words wrongly.

Yep here we are everything is still pretty fucked. You are trying to justify difficulty with the story and tone.
Most people just don't care about those things.
Are you telling me DS3 will be sunshine and rainbows? No something will happen in 2 that screws everything again so the game will still be "hard".

You should get a job in jumping over points. You would be really good at it.

What happens afterwards or before has no bearing on the current story. It's a self-contained story that in a time of dark, even the smallest light can grow strong.

Also considering Dark Souls II has been highly hinted to be a prequel or a sequel but taking place in a far off land. It has no bearing either way to Dark Souls story.

The same way harry potter is a self contained story.
Let me guess The hobbit has no bearing at all on The Lord of the Ring's books either right?
It would help if you actually made a point instead of trite reasons.

Never mind I know your a troll now. You don't understand what I am talking about and bringing up random shit to make your point seem valid. Considering that Dark Souls world has been screwed up before the game begins and there was a large war before it. That can easily be used as the setting. Since once again in DS2 your an undead. Now just stop arguing as you make no points. Your examples make no sense in the context of this arguments. Different stories have different rules and how their stories are have no baring on this. Dark Souls is a universe not just one story. Just because they won't have the exact story doesn't mean it takes away from the tone the other games have set.

What's next you are going to tell me DMC 3 had no bearing from DMC1.
Let me guess it doesn't matter which mass effect is played it has no bearing on the story. What color of dark souls would you like Red, green, or blue?

Storys that are intertwined have the same rule they are connected just because an event happens on the other side of the world or a different time doesn't mean they aren't connected that's the talk of first world punks. I mean really just you don't care about something else because it happens further away or slightly before or after your time when you KNOW about it?
If you are saying that at all it means you don't give a damn about the story to begin with.

No, all stories follow the same rule barring those that are in alternate realities and even those follow the same rules for the most part eventually interlinking with the main itself. Earth-1 and earth-2 ring any bells?

Problem is that yur examples are direct sequels. Dark Souls 2 will be either a indirect sequel or prequel. It's not like mass effect with Shepard always there or DMC with Dante or another character who is in contact. All I am saying is that they aren't going to suddenly change the themes, tones, and style for the sake of being a sequel or prequel. Dark Souls 2 is most likely a prequel that takes place during the age of fire or during the war against the dragons. Either way your another undead, not a god. They aren't going to suddenly change the dark and despaired tone of be series. That is what I think you don't get. Dark Souls is Dark Fantasy, it's not going to become high fantasy or just standard fantasy. If Ds2 is a prequel than most likely the next game will be a new world with no connections to dark souls.